Michael Paquier wrote: > > If that's not a hard-coded PG version number then I don't know > > what it is. Maybe it would be better to use random() instead, > > but surely this isn't good as-is. > > We would definitely want something within the ephemeral port range, so > we are up to that: > rand() * 16384 + 49152;
Yes, this seems to produce the correct range. Thanks Noah and Tom for the review, and thanks Michael for the patch. I pushed it. A slight fix was to change the chomp() call; it was always returning 1 (number of elements chomped) so it tried to kill init. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
